Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It describes return fields but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. As a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with primary function, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple batch lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: explains purpose, batch size, return fields, and pairing recommendation. Could add error handling but not essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description for addresses. Description adds value by specifying the batch limit of 200 and listing return fields, but does not explain address uniqueness or validation beyond schema pattern.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it's a batch score lookup for up to 200 addresses, specifies returned fields (agentScore, deployerScore, proofCount, hasAnyTrust), and distinguishes from sibling tools like mainstreet_score by highlighting batch capability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly pairs with mainstreet_find_verified for a two-call discovery workflow, giving clear when-to-use context. Also implies not to use for single addresses (use mainstreet_score instead).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.